HKSAR v. HO MAN HUNG

DCCC 844/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 844 OF 2015

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to three charges.

2. He has pleaded guilty to Charge 1, a Section 17 Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212, and that is to unlawfully and maliciously wound a victim with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

3. Charge 2 is a Section 39 Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212, offence, where the defendant assaulted the second victim, occasioning her actual bodily harm.

4. The third charge is the defendant pleaded guilty to a Section 33 Public Order Ordinance offence, Cap 245.  The defendant had, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, with him offensive weapons, namely, one knife and one chopper.

5. The facts are as follows.

6. The defendant met his then-girlfriend (PW3) in June 2014.  He began to cohabit with PW3 some time in September 2014, when they lived with his mother. 

7. In August 2014, the defendant went to work at the same company as his girlfriend.  There he met PW1 and PW2, who are the victims of Charge 1 and Charge 2 respectively.  Both are female colleagues.  I have been told that PW1 was his superior.

8. The defendant did not work there for long, leaving that company in October 2014.  Clearly, he was on bad terms with PW1 when he left.

9. The defendant persuaded his girlfriend (PW3) to also resign in January 2015.  After his girlfriend had left that company, she remained friends with PW1 and PW2.

10. Between January and June 2015, the offence date, the defendant and his girlfriend’s relationship came to an end.

11. On 11 June 2015, PW3 was in Mong Kok with PW1 and PW2.  At about 6.25 pm they saw the defendant on Argyle Street.  The defendant was glaring at them.  PW2 suggested that they all leave.  The facts are that when all three were about to leave, the defendant rushed at PW1.  He hit PW1 on the neck with a knife, which had a blade of about 5 centimetres long.

12. PW2, seeing this, pushed the defendant away. However, the defendant rushed at PW1 again.  PW2 had to try and push him away once more.  Luckily, there were two off-duty police officers who were passing by and both subdued the defendant immediately.

13. The defendant was arrested and cautioned at the scene.  There he told the police that he had bought the knife to chop PW1.  In his bag, the police found a second weapon, a chopper that had a 20-centimetre blade.  He said he bought that to chop someone.

14. Under caution, in a video recorded interview, the defendant made a full admission.  He explained to the police that PW1 had treated him badly as a member of her team.  The company they all worked at was a target-based system and he did not meet his target so he had to put his own money into the company.  He told the police he had spent $50,000 of his own money and that he had to take a loan out to pay for that. 

15. He explained that his girlfriend had become very close to PW1 and he felt PW1 was a troublemaker.  He blamed PW1 for persuading PW3 to break up with him.  He also blamed her for the fact that he found it difficult to find work after leaving this company because he had incurred debts.  After his girlfriend had left him, he blamed everything on PW1.

16. Mr Shah has given further details today and says, in fact, he spent $100,000 of his own money paying for company products because he did not meet targets.  I have been shown receipts of purchases he made of beauty products.

17. Months after the defendant left this company, June 2015, the facts are that he took a knife and chopper to find PW1.  He told the police that PW3 had told him where they were that evening.  He told the police he was angry and was going to threaten her, PW1, with a knife.  He lastly told the police under caution that he was remorseful, he knew that what he had done was wrong; he handled the situation badly and lacked self-control.

18. I have seen a photograph album prepared by the police.  It shows the location of the attack was on Argyle Street.  There was blood on the ground where the attack took place.  There are photographs of the knife found used to stab PW1.  Lastly, there are photographs of PW1 taken some time later after the attack, showing where she was stabbed and the scar that is left behind.

19. The facts also describe the medical condition of PW1.  It showed that she had a 1-centimetre stab wound to her left neck region. When she was taken to hospital, she was rushed into surgery.  She had a haematoma in her left lower neck and in surgery the doctors found that her muscles had been cut.  The wound was sutured.  However, the next day the doctors found that there was internal bleeding.  She had to have an emergency surgery to put a stent in an artery to stop the leaking.

20. The victim was discharged from hospital on 15 June 2015.  The scar is very visible and long; it’s very lucky that the stab did not result in any life-threatening injuries.

21. PW2, the victim of Charge 2, sustained an abrasion on her left finger, which was sustained when she tried to stop the defendant attacking PW1.

22. In mitigation, I have been told the defendant is 20 years old and had a clear record. 

23. On the last occasion, I called for two reports: a psychiatric and a psychological report.

24. The psychiatrist is of the view that defendant does not suffer from any psychiatric disorder.

25. The psychologist’s report is more detailed.  It refers to social and emotional problems the defendant had when he was in primary school.  It describes an actual incident when the defendant threatened to harm himself and a teacher with a knife at school.  As the defendant entered secondary school, more problems arose.  He even briefly resided in a hostel of the Youth Outreach for closer supervision of behavioural problems.  The defendant eventually stopped schooling after Form 3.

26. After he left school, he did work in several fields.  He told the psychologist that he had a year-long relationship with PW3.  He then had conflicts with PW1.  PW1 interfered with his relationship with PW3.  Obviously, his anger towards her built up over time.  He says he even worried about PW3 when she was with PW1.  He told the psychologist that he bought the two knives to protect himself and his girlfriend from PW1.  However, obviously by that time they were no longer in a relationship.

27. On the material evening when he saw the three women, it was PW1 who asked him to leave.  This was when he attacked her with the knife.  The psychologist says the defendant has weak emotional management, with a tendency to act aggressively when under an intense emotional situation.

28. The psychologist ultimately opines the defendant has no clinically significant psychological problem, but would benefit from treatment for his poor emotional management skills.  The defendant is willing to receive such help.

29. I have also received in mitigation three letters: one from his mother, another from PW3 and lastly one from a restaurant owner who is willing to give the defendant a job after he has served any term of imprisonment.

30. The defendant’s best mitigation today was his plea of guilty.  His previous clear record is obviously also very relevant to the sentencing.

31. Mr Shah has said all he can on behalf of the defendant in mitigation.  He has highlighted every relevant factor for me to consider. 

32. He has referred me to an authority, Secretary for Justice v Hung Kar Chun, CAAR 9/2010, for my reference. 

33. For the offence, Charge 1, wounding with intent, there is no tariff or any sentencing guideline.  The usual range has been said to be one of between 3 years and 12 years’ imprisonment.  This range has been referred to in many cases, including Secretary for Justice v Yu Yat Sang [2011] 1 HKC 155 as well as HKSAR v Hau Ping Chuen [2008] 3 HKC 398.  This wide range reflects the fact the circumstances of each case will vary significantly.

34. There are many factors in this case considered relevant to sentencing. 

35. Here, the defendant has pleaded guilty.  This shows remorse.  However, the attack was unprovoked that evening.  The fact is the defendant took two knives to look for the victims and used one of the knives without any warning. 

36. Moreover, he used the knife to stab at the head area of PW1 and stabbed her in the neck, luckily her left side.  The head and neck are very vulnerable areas of the body and such a stab could have caused life-threatening injuries.  The authority of Yu Yat Sang refers to an attack with a knife to vulnerable parts of the body as being very serious and the Court of Appeal is of the view that it cannot be forgotten it is an attack with an intent to wound.

37. The defendant has explained why he bore PW1 a grudge and it in no way excuses what he did, but it provides a background to the attack, which I will not ignore.

38. I will also take into account the doctor’s reports, but having poor anger management skills is not an excuse either.

39. Whilst I take mitigation into account, I also have to ensure that the severity of the wound and the facts are dealt with in line with the gravity of the offence.

40. Defendant, please stand up.

41. After careful consideration of those factors  I have just referred to as being relevant as well as the mitigation put forward, the facts of this case, I find, merit a 4 year and 6 months’ starting point.

42. I will reduce that by 6 months to take into account the mitigation and your previous clear record.

43. This starting point of 4 years will be reduced by one-third because you pleaded guilty.

44. For Charge 1, you are sentenced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

45. For Charge 2, the facts are much less serious. I take a starting point of 9 months’ imprisonment.

46. You have pleaded guilty.  You are entitled to a discount of one-third. 

47. After that discount is applied, for Charge 2 you are sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.

48. Charge 3, having offensive weapons under the Public Order Ordinance, I will take a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment. 

49. There is a discount of one-third for your plea of guilty and for Charge 3 you will be sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

50. All three charges arose out of the same incident.  I am going to order all three charges to be served concurrently.

51. Therefore, for all three charges, you are sentenced to a total of 2 years and 8 months’ sentence.

COURT: Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: I understand.

52. I will order that you will be offered psychological treatment whilst serving this sentence.